- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9998 OF 2018 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7872 OF 2018 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 9998/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. N NAGESH S/O SRI NIRANJAN RAO MANE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO.11/A, CPRI COMPOUND KARIYAPPA LAYOUT R M V, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 094. 2. SMT. VEDHAVATHI BAI W/O SRI N NAGESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.11/A, CPRI COMPOUND KARIYAPPA LAYOUT R M V, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 094. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R. RAVI .,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 NO.25/1, 2ND FLOOR BUILDING, NO.2 SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING NO.1 M G ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. SADIQ PASHA S/O SRI AMEER LAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS KURUTHAHALLI VILLAGE KALAHALLI POST CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT-561 207. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1(VC); R2- SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2809/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 7872/2018 BETWEEN: THE CLAIM MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.25/1, 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.2, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER-CLAIMS SOUTH. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NAGESH N., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O NIRANJAN RAO MANE, 2. SMT VEDHAVATHI BAI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O NAAGESH N., BOTH ARE R/AT NO.11/A, CPRI COMPOUND, KARIYAPPA LAYOUT, R.M.V. II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094. 3. MR. SADIQ PASHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O AMEER LAL, KURUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, KALAHALLI POST, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 207. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. RAVI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3-SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2809/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,74,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) These appeals are filed by the claimants/appellants herein against the judgment and award dated 29.06.2018 passed in M.V.C.No.2809/2016, on the file of Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City 2. Brief facts of the case leading upto filing of the present appeals are that on 06.03.2016 at about 1:45 a.m., one Bipin. B was travelling on his motorbike bearing registration No. KA-04-JA-6424 to his relative's home at Yelhanka on Bengaluru-Bellary main road. When he reached near under railway bridge towards airport road, he touched rear side of a stationed lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-440 and fell onto the road, by which time an unknown vehicle travelling in a high speed in the same direction suddenly dashed the motorbike of the deceased Bipin. B resulting in he sustaining grievous injuries and succumbing to the same at the spot. 3. A complaint was registered by one Nagaraj, Police Constable of Yelhanka Police Station against the driver of the offending lorry. Thereafter, a case in Crime No.48/2016 for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 offences punishable under section 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 134(A) and (B), 187 of IMV Act was registered, spot mahazar was conducted, sketch was prepared. 4. Thereupon, the claimants being the parents of the deceased Bipin. B filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- contending inter-alia that the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and was working in a private company and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, untimely death of the deceased has caused financial and emotional distress to the petitioners/appellants. Hence, seeks for compensation. 5. Respondent-Insurance Company filed statement of objections denying involvement of the offending lorry and also denied the mode and manner of the accident. It is contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. That the deceased did not possess valid and effective driving licence, registration of the complaint by the Yelhanka Police Station is also denied. It is contended that the offending lorry was not at all responsible for cause of accident, as the same - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 was moving on the road slowly and cautiously. That the deceased was riding a motorbike without helmet in the high speed and in rash and negligent manner and in the process of overtaking, the ongoing vehicle lost control and touched to the rear portion of the offending lorry, resulting in he falling down and being hit by unknown vehicle. As such, the petition was not maintainable as against the respondent-Insurance Company. However, admitted having issued the insurance policy in respect of the offending lorry in favour of respondent No.2-Owner. It is contended that the policy was in force from 07.03.2016 to 08.03.2017 and since the accident in question had taken place on 06.03.2016, there was no valid policy to cover the risk as on the date of the accident. It is also contended that the respondent No.2 was required to prove the other documents of vehicle such as RC, FC, permit and Tax etc., that the driver of the motorbike was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle in his written statement, denied the petition averments and also denied the accident had occurred on account of alleged negligent parking - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 of the offending lorry by its driver. It is contended that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by the deceased. It is contended however since the offending vehicle has been insured with respondent No.1 and the policy was in force, compensation, if any, was required to be paid by respondent No.1-Insurance company. 7. Based on the pleading, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that Bipin. B S/o. Nagesh.N died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 06-03-2016 at about 1.45 а.m., on Bengaluru-Bellary Main road, near Bypass Railway Bridge, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01- 0440 ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3. What Order or Award? 8. Petitioner No.1, the father of deceased examined himself as PW.1 and got exhibited 15 documents, as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On the other hand, one Mr.Suresh was examined as RW1 and got exhibited five documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 9. On appreciation of the pleading and material evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased Bipin died due to injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry and consequently held that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.9,74,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the respondent-Insurance Company is before this Court in M.F.A.No.7872/2018 and the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation in M.F.A.No.9998/2018. 10. Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Insurance Company taking this Court through the records and reasoning arrived by the Tribunal submits that a specific contention have been taken by respondent No.1-Insurance Company with regard to the date of issuance of policy and the date of accident. In that he submits the accident had occurred on 06.03.2016, while the insurance policy was valid between 07.03.2016 and 08.03.2017. He submits that the insurance policy that was produced by the claimants was a fake and fabricated document, and the Tribunal ought not to have - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 declined to accept the contention of the insurance company with regard to validity or otherwise of the insurance policy. He further submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated the material evidence made available on record by the respondent- Insurance company, resulting in erroneous award being passed. He further submits that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by the deceased. That there was no positive material evidence to prove that the lorry in question was not moving and was parked as contended. That there was no eye witness with regard to manner of the alleged accident. That the IMV report produced at Ex.P5 indicating the damages caused to the offending lorry and the motorbike of the deceased would prove that the deceased was riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. That the very fact that the unknown vehicle knocked down the motorcycle of the deceased and sped away would indicate that there was sufficient open space for other vehicle to pass through the lorry in question. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Thus, he submits that both on the count of Insurance policy not being in force as on the date - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 of the accident and on the grounds of negligence, Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability of payment on the respondent- Insurance Company. Hence, seeks for allowing his petition. 11. Sri. R. Ravi, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants herein on the other hand submits that the Tribunal has awarded compensation, which is on meagre side. Despite, the claimants producing the documentary evidence with regard to the employment of the deceased and the salary benefits which he was deriving in a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken monthly income at Rs.9,000/- which is grossly inadequate. The compensation awarded on the other heads are also on lower side. 12. As regards, the insurance policies concerned, learned counsel submits that the insurance policy was valid and subsisting as on the date of accident. He further submits that even the respondent-Insurance Company which has disputed the currencies of the insurance policy, has not produced authenticated insurance policy. He submits that there has been interpolation in the written statement with regard the dates of issuance of the policy and the currency of insurance policy, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 which aspect has been taken note of by the Tribunal. Hence, he submits that the compensation be re-assessed and just compensation be awarded. 13. Heard both sides and perused the records. 14. The points that arise for consideration are with regard to negligence, liability and quantum. 15. That the accident and involvement of vehicles is not dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has taken up a defence that the deceased was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner was in the process of overtaking the ongoing vehicles. As such, he had lost control over the vehicle and came in contact to the rear portion of the offending lorry, resulting in his fall and being hit by another unknown vehicle. 16. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the said incident. Ex.P1 is the FIR, which resulted in registration of a Crime No.48 for the offences punishable under section 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 134(A) and (B), 187 of IMV Act. Ex.P2 is the charge sheet, which is filed against the driver of the offending lorry as well as against the unknown vehicle. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 Ex.P3 is the panchanama and Ex.P4 is the sketch. Ex.P5 is the IMV report. The damages caused to the offending vehicle is disclosed in the IMV report, wherein right side tail lamp assembly and safety guard, right rear wheel mud guard of the offending vehicle are shown to have been damaged. While the motorcycle of the deceased has sustained damages on all the sides. Ex.P5 also discloses that, accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles involved in the accident. PW.1, who has been examined in support of the claim has deposed based on the aforesaid documents. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the said evidence and the aspect of negligence. Further, no witness or evidence is produced on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company. The Tribunal based on the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of negligence in parking of the offending lorry by its driver. 17. In the absence of any contrary evidence being produced by the respondent-Insurance Company to rebut aforesaid claimants’ evidence, no error can be found with the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence. 18. As regards, the question of liability the contention of the respondent-Insurance Company is that accident had occurred on 06.03.2016, while the policy that had been issued in respect of the offending lorry was in force between 07.03.2016 and 08.03.2017. Though, the date of commencement of the policy is stated to be a day subsequent to the accident, the fact of issuance of policy has been admitted. Burden, therefore is upon the respondent-Insurance Company to have adduced acceptable evidence in justification of its contention of policy being in force subsequent to the date of accident. 19. Perusal of statement of objections filed by the respondent-Insurance Company would indicate that there are overwritings and insertions at paragraph No.7. Wherein the sentence providing for commencement of the policy, which originally appears to be 02.03.2016 to 01.03.2017 has been overwritten to read as 09.03.2016 to 08.03.2017. The aforesaid insertion does not appear to have been made with the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 permission of the Tribunal. The statement of objections so filed also does not even bear the date. 20. However, in the statement of objections filed by respondent No.2-Owner of the vehicle on 25.11.2016, there is a specific averment that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.1-Insurance company and the policy was in force at the time of accident. 21. RW.1 namely One Mr. Suresh, Manager Legal of respondent-Insurance Company has been examined. In the cross-examination, the said witness has stated that he is working in the company since four months. That the policy produced at Ex.R1, was certified by Underwriting Department and that he has not produced CD pertaining to the Ex.R1. He has also pleaded ignorance as to the date on which Ex.R1 was taken out from the computer. The Ex.R1 is not accompanied by a certificate required 65(B) (4) of the Evidence Act. He has admitted that Ex.R1 is not certified. He has also admitted since the said document is a computer generated, same does not bear seal or signature. He also admitted that there are overwriting and insertion at paragraph Nos.5,7 and 10 of the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 statement of objections. He has further admitted that Ex.R1 was issued on receipt of the premium amount from the respondent No.2-Owner and that he is not aware if Ex.R1 was issued after occurrence of the accident. He has also admitted that, when a new policy is issued, they would verify the old policy. Though a complaint in Ex.R2 is produced alleging fabrication of the policy, the witness has stated that the said complaint has been filed as the original policy had not been produced. 22. As already noted, there is no dispute of the fact that the respondent-Insurance company had indeed issued the policy which even according to the respondent-Insurance company was valid from 07.03.2016 to 08.03.2017, while the accident in question has taken place on 06.03.2016. If date of issuance of policy is on 07.03.2016, the respondent-Insurance company has not given the details as to the date on which the premium was received. 23. Since, the respondent-Insurance Company has taken a specific and a serious stand of respondent No.2-Owner obtaining a fake policy, it ought to have discharged the burden - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 in the manner known to law. Merely making allegations without substantiating the same with cogent evident would not serve the purpose. 24. In view of the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal at paragraph Nos.29 to 33 of the impugned order cannot be found fault with. As such, the said contention with regard to validity of the policy to be from 07.03.2016 to 08.03.2017 cannot be countenanced. 25. Now adverting to the quantum of compensation, deceased is stated to have been aged about 23 years at time of his death. Though, it is claimed that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, no documentary evidence is produced. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the chart prepared by the KSLSA needs to be taken into consideration. Since accident is of the year 2016, the notional income of the deceased is determined as Rs.9,500/- p.m. 26. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 and others1 since the deceased was aged about 23 years, 40% of income is to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the total income of the deceased per month would be Rs.13,300/- (Rs.9,500X40%= Rs.3,800+Rs.9,500=Rs.13,300). 27. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the same needs to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Considering the age multiplier of '18' is applied. Therefore, loss of dependency would be (Rs.13,300 X 50%=6,650/-) (6,650X12X18)= Rs.14,36,400/- 28. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram 2 and as clarified by the judgment in the case of United Insurance Company Ltd., Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others3, the claimant Nos.1 and 2 being the parents are entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. 29. In addition they are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses on each head. 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 2 2018 (18) SCC 130 3 AIR 2020 SC 3076 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 30. The claim having been made in the year 2016 and an award having been made in the year 2018, amount awarded under the conventional heads requires to be revised at 10% for every block of three years. Since three blocks of three years have been completed, the compensation towards consortium, loss of estate and funeral and transportation expenses shall be escalated by 30%. Thus, respondents/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation. 31. Therefore the claimants/appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.15,79,400/- as under; Sl.No. Head Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.14,36,400/- 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs.1,04,000/- 3 Towards loss of estate Rs.19,500/- 4 Towards funeral expenses Rs.19,500/- Total Rs.15,79,400/- Less awarded by the Tribunal Rs.9,74,000/- Enhanced by Rs.6,05,400/- 32. The Tribunal has attributed 70% of the negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle and 30% of the negligence on the part of the unknown vehicle and has accordingly directed the respondent-Insurance company to pay 70% of the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 compensation. This Court finds no reason to differ from the same. 33. Accordingly, respondent-Insurance company shall pay 70% of the aforesaid sum of Rs.15,79,400/- which is Rs.11,05,580/-. 34. Thus the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,31,580/-. 35. As regards the rate of interest the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., the same is reduced to 6% p.a. 36. The respondent-Insurance company shall pay Rs.11,05,580/- with interest at 6% percent per annum from the date of petition till realization. 37. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i). Appeals are allowed in part. (ii). The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.11,05,580/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:13992-DB MFA No. 9998 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7872 of 2018 (iii). Respondent No.1/Insurer in the claim petition shall deposit the aforesaid compensation before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any. (iv). The order of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment of the compensation and investment is maintained. (v). Transmit the records and the amount in deposit, if any to the Tribunal. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44